Introduction
Since the reign of President
Donald Trump, there has been a constant stream of pronouncements and political
analyses within the progressive community that the current political situation
in the United States is a dramatically significant aberration from a
theoretical notion of what America is as exemplified by the creation of the No
Kings movement.
I find that viewpoint pointedly
naïve. The history of this country,
since its inception, is a vivid demonstration of the fundamental fallacy of
this interpretation. This nation will
soon be celebrating 250 years since its beginning. Hundreds of years before it became a nation,
the colonies were aiding in the abductions of Africans against their will from
their native lands, bringing them to America and forcing them into
slavery. This practice continued until
the Civil War came to its bloody conclusion in 1864 and finally with the
passage of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the nation’s
Constitution effectively eradicating the practice of slavery, granting
citizenship to the freed slaves including the right to vote.
Also, at the inception of the
United States of America as an independent nation, it began to expand westward
displacing by force the native populations and nearly committing complete
genocide of an entire people. Much of
the territory of the Southwest was taken from Mexico as a result of the Mexican
War that the U.S. initiated through a rather ingenious deception.
All of this is clearly documented
through the historic record. Given this
infamous past, never has this nation made even the suggestion of reparations
for these horrific wrongs. It is my contention that this historic
reality is an intrinsic aspect of the nation’s past and has seriously impacted
the American psyche.
Furthermore, the current
unconstitutional war being waged against Iran and its people is not an anomaly
but is in fact more the norm than an aberration. The post- World War II United States history
of warfare is replete with horrors of unimaginable proportions. These wars were perpetrated under the aegis
of an array of Presidents representing a wide range of political persuasions.
World War II (1939 – 1945)
I was born in the month of
October in the year 1944, some ten months before the atomic bombing of the cities
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II in which an estimated 140 to 210
thousand individuals lost their lives including an estimated 38,000
children. This was done even though the
extent of the possible civilian casualties was a complete unknown since this
type of weapon – nuclear in nature - had never been used in all of human
history. This was especially true in
regard to human exposure to unprecedented amounts of nuclear radiation. The Japanese residents of these cities were
essentially used as human guinea pigs.
In addition, the unprecedented
firebombing of Japanese cities during the war was intense and deadly and
destructive not only to human lives but also to the infrastructure that is a
requisite for human survival. Airforce General Curtis Lemay who was
instrumental in implementing the bombings actually said, "If we lost the
war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals."
The Korean War – (1950 – 1953)
Soon after the end of World War
II came the Korean War. The United
States involvement in the Korean War was supposedly to prevent the takeover of
the entire country by the Communist – led North. It needs to be remembered that the Chinese
Communist Revolution successfully took over China in 1948.
As part of the U.S. strategy
during this war, dams holding water for the use of growing rice for the people
of North Korea were bombed from the air as described by the United States Air
Force (USAF) Museum _
Key Attacks on Irrigation Dams (May-June 1953)
·
Toksan Dam: On May 13, 1953, F-84 Thunderjets
breached this dam, creating a flood that "scooped clean" 27 miles of
river valley, destroyed 700 buildings in Pyongyang, and ruined thousands of
acres of newly planted rice.
·
Chasan Dam: Attacked on May 15–16, 1951, by
F-84s, this strike resulted in similar devastating floods that washed away
critical infrastructure.
·
Kuwonga, Namsi, and Taechon Dams: These three
dams were subsequently targeted to further cripple the agricultural base.
·
Impact on Rice Production: Approximately 70% of
North Korean rice production depended on these irrigation systems. The
destruction of the dams ruined current crops and sabotaged future harvests by
washing away essential topsoil.
Estimates of the North Korean
civilian death toll during the Korean War varies, generally ranging from
roughly 700,000 to over 1.5 million, with some estimates indicating 12–15% of
the population died. The country was
heavily bombed, leading to massive civilian casualties from air raids,
starvation, and exposure.
The Vietnam War – (1955 – 1975)
The horrors of the Vietnam War careen in my head. The daily reporting of the ceaseless
bloodletting and crazed bombardment, the senseless killing and agonizing deaths
still haunt me at times.
Vietnam and its people were occupied many times throughout
its history – the Chinese, the French, the Americans.
America’s involvement began in the 1950’s, soon after
France’s defeat at Dien Bien Phu on May 7, 1954. The intervention began slowly during the
presidency of John F. Kennedy and climaxed during the presidency of Lyndon B.
Johnson. In 1975, the U.S. left
hurriedly in ignominious defeat.
This involvement consisted of sending advisory troops
reaching over 23,000 by 1964. This involvement
was escalated significantly during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson after the
Gulf of Tonkin incident (August 2 – 4 1964).
On March 8, 1965, 3500 Marines landed near Da Nang. The supposed aim was
to thwart the spread of Communism as a civil war raged between the Communist North
and the South aligned with the West – note, they never were two separate
sovereignties.
The bombed-out cities resulting in horrendous loss of life
and destroyed infrastructure, the nation’s countryside eviscerated with
chemical defoliant (Agent Orange) and the tragic extent of unnecessary suffering
is collectively hard to imagine.
·
Estimates range from 30,000 to 182,000 civilian
deaths as a direct result of relentless bombardment by U.S. aircraft throughout
Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos
·
Two million estimated civilian deaths by both
sides of the conflict.
·
An estimated 388,000 tons of napalm
(gasoline-based ordinance) dropped by airplane known to literally catch the
skin of fire. An estimated 400,000
people were killed or injured in this way.
·
The defoliation of nearly one-quarter of the
entire nation of Vietnam using Agent Orange (dioxin) dispensed from the
air. This carcinogenic and highly toxic
substance exposed an estimated 2.1 to 4.8 million Vietnamese. As a result of this exposure, it is estimated
that about 500,000 children were subsequently born with birth defects, and 3
million Vietnamese are believed to have subsequently suffered from cancer. In fact, there a particular cancerous disease
– Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) that has been shown to be caused by the
exposure of American soldiers to
dioxin who have since been compensated by the American government. No such compensation has ever been suggested
on the part of the United States.
The above list is an oversimplified description of the numerous
atrocities visited upon the people of Vietnam.
During the course of the war, these actions were well covered by the
American media and yet the number of voices declaring outrage was relatively
insignificant until American casualties rose to unacceptable levels.
The Gulf Wars
The other area of intense
political engagement was and continues to be the Middle East. Suffice it to say that the overriding concern
is access to cheap oil. The American
economy has been driven, especially since the end of the Second World War, by
the idea of perpetual material progress fueled by increased production and
consumption of commercial goods. This
economic model requires ever-increasing expenditure of energy. Although the U.S. represents about 5 percent
of the world’s population, it consumes some 40 percent of the world’s energy
resources. It has been estimated that if
every individual on the planet lived at the same level of consumption as
Americans, four additional planets would be necessary to accommodate that
consumption. At the time of these
conflicts, the cheapest form of energy was oil.
This is partly due to the refusal of a succession of government
administrations to adequately subsidize and encourage the use of alternative
forms of energy including solar and wind power.
Any threat to the supply of oil, therefore, threatens the vitality of
the economic engine and, more importantly, the wealth of the powerful ruling
class and, by inference, the workers who are dependent upon them for their
livelihoods.
The peoples of the Middle East
have been exploited and manipulated by Western colonial powers for many years
to ensure their continued unfettered access to oil. The historic record is replete with not-so-subtle
proof of this assertion. In 1953, the
Iranian premier, Mohammed Mossadeq was overthrown and replaced by the Shah, who
was reinstated. The CIA was deeply
involved in the plot to unseat Mossadeq in an operation referred to as
Ajax. The Premier was deemed to be a
threat on account of his leftist political leanings. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was expelled from
the country some nine months earlier.
According to Kermit Roosevelt in his book entitled, Countercoup: The
Struggle for the Control of Iran, (this book was deemed so “dangerous” that
McGraw Hill was persuaded by British Petroleum to recall all the books from the
bookstores) Anglo-Iranian Oil proposed the overthrow of the Iranian premier.
In the introduction of the London
Draft of the TPAJAX Operational Plan it is stated that, “The policy of both the
U.S. and U.K. governments required replacement of Mossadeq as the alternative
to certain economic collapse in Iran and the eventual loss of the area to the
Soviet orbit. Only through planned and
controlled replacement can the integrity and independence of the country be
ensured.
“The plan which follows is
comprised of three successive stages.
The first two stages precede action of a military nature. They include the present preliminary support
period and the mass propaganda campaign.
These stages will be of real value to the mutual interests of U.S and
U.K. even if final military action is not carried out in that they will make
the position of Mossadeq increasingly vulnerable and unsteady.”
This plan goes on to state that,
“…the United States and the United Kingdom have common aims towards Iran, and
that both want to support him (the Shah) to the utmost in opposing Mossadeq.”
These documents, and the events
that followed from the policies they outlined, are an unambiguous demonstration
of the conspiracy on behalf of the United States and the United Kingdom to
shape the political landscape of the Middle East to further their own economic
interests.
Let us look at one especially
timely example, Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein. This man has been depicted as the veritable
incarnation of evil. This is an image
presented to the public by various U.S. administrations and promulgated by the
media. It is essential that the
proponents of war demonize and dehumanize the enemy so as to make it easier for
the susceptible population to accept the slaughter and decimation of those who
are deemed dangerous. Many examples of
Saddam’s evil treachery have been cited including his use of poison gas against
the Kurds in Northern Iraq. This is undeniably
true when taken by itself, yet, in fact, he was considered an important ally of
the United States at the very time this heinous act was taking place. There were no cries of outrage or threats of
retaliation at the time. Why would this
be the case? Iraq was involved in a
terrible war with Iran at that time. The
United States was busy giving Iraq access to satellite reconnaissance and other
logistical support. The motivation for
this support was most likely based on the strategy of divide and conquer, so well
perfected by the British during the height of its colonial power. Helping to support and sustain such a
terrible conflict weakened both regimes.
Keeping the peoples of the region so engaged in regional hatreds and conflicts
distracts them from the realization that they are being exploited by external
powers.
Let us examine the proclaimed
rationale for our brutal destruction of Iraq during the First Iraq War. Prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Saddam
had a meeting with American Ambassador, April Glaspie. At this meeting, Saddam intimated to the
ambassador his intentions of invading Kuwait.
Her response was that it was a completely regional issue outside of the
American purview. Given this
information, one could question why the American government reacted as it
did. Are we to believe that the
Ambassador spoke without instruction from the State Department? That is an extremely unlikely possibility.
There is evidence that the United
States had a plan to invade Iraq and take control of the oil fields that was
drafted in late 1989 or early 1990. The
CIA, under the direction of William Webster, assisted Kuwait in its violations
of OPEC oil production agreements possibly for the purpose of undercutting the
price of oil thus depleting Iraq’s economy, in taking illegal amounts of oil
from that which it shared with Iraq, and in demanding repayment of loans it had
made to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
It is not unreasonable to presume that the underlying reason for this
behavior was to provoke Iraq into acting against neighboring Kuwait.
The American response to Iraq’s
invasion and occupation of Kuwait, once it took place, entailed nothing less
than the wholesale destruction of the infrastructure of Iraq. The Iraqis had no real means to defend
themselves against the military resources and capabilities of a gigantic
superpower. Sixteen of the eighteen
power stations were destroyed along with water purification and sewage
treatment facilities. This, of course, wreaked
havoc on the civilian population. Vast
areas of the country, including Baghdad, were subjected to severe and
relentless bombardment from the air as well as from cruise missiles launched
from many miles offshore. This produced
no end of psychological, emotional and physical suffering for the peoples of
Iraq. It has been estimated that 80,000
Iraqis lost their lives during the first month of the conflict.
In addition, shells made of
depleted uranium (DU) were used and tested in combat situations within
Iraq. DU is a highly toxic and
radioactive product of the uranium enrichment process. The nuclear industry has more than 1.1
billion pounds of DU. It is quite
informative that the nuclear industry provided this material free to the
munitions factories that manufacture the shells containing DU. This material interested the military for a
number of reasons: it is extremely dense and therefore a potent weapon, it
exists in huge quantities and could be provided free to the manufacturers of
arms. In regard to its deleterious effects
on the human body, government documents have made the following admission, “If
DU enters the body, it has the potential to generate significant medical
consequences. The risks associated with
DU in the body are both chemical and radiological.”
Depleted uranium is about 60
percent as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium. It has a half-life of 4.5 billion years which
means that in that staggering period of time only half of the material would
have been reduced naturally to non-radioactive by-products. This, of course, means that any contamination
of the environment with DU is permanent.
In early tests conducted in the 1970’s, the U.S. military began to
explore how DU might be used in weaponry.
As a result of these tests, it was found that large and small caliber
rounds made of DU were highly effective in piercing armor and could also be
incorporated into tank armor to make tanks more impervious to enemy fire. One may wonder whether another motive for
developing such weapons might be to reduce the burden of the nuclear industry’s
vast inventory of this toxic material.
It has been estimated that by the
end of the Gulf War, between 40 and 300 tons of depleted uranium was scattered
on Iraqi battlefields, especially in the South.
There has been a marked increase in the incidence of childhood cancers
among Iraqi children predominantly in that region, and also mysterious cases of
swollen abdomens. The real health danger
of this material results from incorporation into the body. When a DU shell strikes a hard surface, about
70 percent of the material is oxidized and scattered as small particles. Of these particles, 60 percent are less than
five microns, a size that can be readily taken in with the breath.
Iraqi civilians, soldiers and
American troops came into contact with DU in a variety of ways. There has been more and more evidence
suggesting that the so-called “Gulf War Syndrome” may be related to DU
exposure. The government has
consistently denied any connection between the Gulf War Syndrome and DU. It should be remembered that almost half of
the troops in the Gulf were Black and Latino, many of them seeking the military
as an employer of last resort. It is the
poor, after all, that suffer and die in times of war. Many of them return home not only with both
physical and psychological injuries from the conflict, but also with the
prospect of suffering from debilitating and chronic illnesses.
The fact that the Pentagon and
the Government approved of the use of such a weapon, when its deleterious
environmental effects are widely known and understood, is reminiscent of the
use of anti-personnel weapons, napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam. These are patently criminal acts that have
escaped punishment only because they have been perpetrated by a rogue nation
that believes that its overwhelming military power precludes it from
prosecution by agencies of international justice. This was made abundantly clear when the United
States ignored the judgment of the World Court in regard to its behavior in
Nicaragua during the Reagan presidency.
The United States has shown that it is capable of going to violent and criminal
extremes to achieve political goals unavailable by any other means.
During this war, the majority of
the American public remained blatantly ignorant of these criminal acts, and apathetic
or callously unsympathetic to their disturbing consequences. Somehow the victims of technological warfare
applied on such a momentous scale are not to be viewed with concern, because
they have been successfully categorized as the evil enemy and regarded as
somehow less than human. This would
explain why the events of September 11, 2001 were viewed with such moral
outrage while the far greater scale of violence perpetrated against the people
of Iraqi has been so passively accepted.
There remains to this day a strong public resistance to accept any
connection between the horrendous terrorist attack on American soil, and the
suffering and death that we are clearly and unmistakably responsible for. It is of no surprise that Saddam Hussein was
viewed as a war criminal, while George Bush Sr., his son George W. Bush, Colon
Powell, and the other architects of this deadly policy were portrayed as American
heroes.
This war against Iraq was touted
as a UN action, when, in fact, it was predominantly a United States led
conflict waged against a weak enemy with little capability to counter such an
onslaught. United States troops suffered
very few casualties mostly resulting from friendly fire. During this conflict, the American public was
subjected to film and video clips showing the wondrous accuracy of so-called
“smart weapons.” Audiences applauded as
buildings, of supposed strategic importance, were blown up, as if no one was
inside those buildings as they shattered and were engulfed in flames. The pilots delivering this devastation all
returned safely to their bases, for there were no Iraqi defenses to speak of. Military reports described civilian
casualties as “collateral damage.” It
was said that these deaths were a result of accidents rather than bad or
malicious intention. This explanation is
patent nonsense, for the military was intent on keeping American casualties at
a minimum regardless of the human cost to the enemy. The architects of this strategy were
wondrously successful, or so they believed and continued to believe.
The Persian Gulf War and the air
war against Serbia have shown the extent to which the United States and its
Western allies have perfected the art of industrial warfare. This kind of warfare is carried on by mechanized
weapons that can destroy large numbers of people and infrastructure from great
distances, keeping the perpetrators safe and insulated from the destruction and
harvest of death. This kind of warfare
has been adeptly described by Chris Hedges, a foreign correspondent, in his
timely book entitled, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. The American public seems comfortable with
the paucity of information that is provided to them regarding the extent of
suffering that American made weapons impose upon other peoples, who are the
innocent victims of American power.
Although the conflict was over in
a matter of months, the victor was not satisfied with the suffering that had
been imposed. The Iraqi people were made
to suffer for an additional twelve years under draconian sanctions that
essentially kept them in a state of severe poverty in an environment where the
public health facilities were completely devastated. It has been estimated, by a United Nations
study, that 500,000 Iraqi children lost their lives as a direct result of these
sanctions.
Are these not crimes against
humanity? After all, they do not differ
qualitatively from the brutal behavior of those defeated in previous wars, who
were charged with such crimes and have suffered imprisonment or death for
them. If justice was truly served, Henry
Kissinger, George Bush, father and son, Colin Powell and General Schwartkof
would have been put on trial for the murderous crimes they perpetrated against
so many innocent people. The nation
continues to hold up such leaders with great praise and thankfulness in spite
of the needless suffering and devastation they wrecked upon the world for the
sake of the powerful. It is conceivable
that the truth may ultimately prevail in some future time, when the American
empire has waned and its military might is no longer preeminent. Should we really be surprised that much of
the world’s poor view us with fear, apprehension and hatred?
What was the purpose of such an
extreme and brutal response to the invasion of Kuwait? To me the answer is quite obvious: it was a
clear demonstration that the United States knows no bounds to its brutality
when it feels it has been wronged or its economic hegemony has been
threatened. Noam Chomsky in his book, Rogue
States the Rule of Force in World Affairs, sees this kind of behavior as
part of the strategy of an outlaw state that will act unilaterally whenever its
own national interests are threatened.
There is a perception in the
United States that access to oil from outside its borders is a birthright. It seems entirely antithetical to capitalist
precepts to believe that anyone can own something that has not yet been
purchased. If the poor man acted based
on that philosophy, he would soon be behind bars for a very long time. The powerful cannot tolerate their own
behavior when it is adopted by the powerless.
They know only too well to do so would inevitably lead to their own ultimate
downfall.
A paper was presented to a
symposium held by the Albany Law School on February 27, 1992. It was entitled: International War Crimes:
The Search for Justice. The paper
outlines the actions of the George Bush Sr. administration during the Gulf War
that would qualify for war crimes. The
charges were made against President George Bush Sr., Vice President Dan Quayle,
Secretary of State Jim Baker, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, National
Security Assistant Brent Scowcroft, CIA Director William Webster, Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, General Norman Schwarzkopf and other
members of the High Command of the United States military establishment.
The charges made against the
defendants in this paper were the following, all of which have been documented
here and elsewhere:
• Perversion
of the U.S. Constitution that clearly and unequivocally gives the Congress and
the Congress only the right to declare war.
• Bypassed
and violated Chapter VI of the United Nations charter that mandates a specific protocol
for the settlement of international disputes as is found in Article 2 of the
United Nations Charter, claiming that there would be no compromise and no
negotiation.
• Destruction
of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout
Iraq. The military targets included
business districts, schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, shelters,
residential areas, power stations, water purification plants, sewage treatment
plants. The estimates range from 25,000
civilian dead to 113,000 including many children. According to the Nuremberg Charter “wanton
destruction of cities, towns or villages” is a Nuremberg War Crime. The net result of these atrocities was to
leave Iraq with its infrastructure seriously decimated and its society in a
pre-industrial condition. It is
estimated that more than 100,000 civilians died from dehydration, dysentery,
malnutrition, hunger, shock and distress.
• Wanton
killing of Iraqi soldiers who were defending their country with the dead
numbering in the tens of thousands.
These soldiers were essentially incapable of defending themselves from
such a technologically based assault.
Many of these soldiers were buried alive at the beginning of
hostilities.
• The
use of prohibited weapons of mass destruction.
These weapons included fuel air explosives, napalm, cluster bombs and
anti-personnel fragmentation bombs used in Basra and so-called “Super bombs”
used against hardened shelters. Included
among those killed on the “Highway of Death” were civilians of all ages
including Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Jordanians and others.
• Military
actions that clearly endanger the natural environment.
The atrocities cited in this
paper are all a matter of the historic record and cannot be reasonably
refuted. They point not only to the Bush
administration, but to the foreign policy of the United States that has been
systematically involved in a brutal war against the poor of this world,
whenever they are deemed to pose a threat to America’s economic and military
expansion.
The drums of war have not yet
been stilled. The destruction of the
World Trade Center Towers in New York, together with thousands of people who
occupied those buildings and lost their lives, the loss of passengers in the
four airplanes that were used as weapons and those who died when the Pentagon
building was hit, had a profound impact on the American people. Suddenly, we could no longer feel safe within
our own borders. Suddenly, we were no
longer immune to the violence that besets so many of the world’s people. The government, of course, would admit no
linkage between this horrendous event and the untold suffering experienced by
the Iraqi people as a direct result of our military and economic assault upon
them, or the suffering of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israelis
with weapons supplied by the United States.
They portrayed the event as an assault by evil doers who feel hatred for
the United States on account of the freedom and democracy it affords its
people. The United States government,
through its many administrations, has never taken responsibility for its brutal
and violent behavior throughout the world.
It has always assumed that it could attack other nations with extreme
brutality and never expect reprisals from its victims abroad. The late Senator Fullbright referred to this
attitude as the “Arrogance of Power.”
The events of September 11 have proven that this viewpoint is
mistaken. It is most unfortunate that
rather than taking the opportunity to change the course of history, the U.S.
has taken the road towards massive retaliation and building a bigger and more
impenetrable wall around itself. This,
in my mind, is completely wrong-headed and ultimately self-destructive. It is reminiscent of the attitude and
behavior of the Roman Empire before its downfall. Rome at that time was over-extended abroad
and collapsing from within. I find many
parallels between the Roman Empire and the current state of affairs in the
United States with troops all around the world, an enormous defense budget,
staggering budget deficits, and many millions of its citizens disenfranchised
without adequate health care, housing, education and nutrition. The analogy is reinforced still further by
the great divide between the few who have and everyone else.
After the September 11 attack, there
was an ongoing campaign by the George W. Bush administration to establish a
policy of continual war, and his administration managed to extract from the
Congress a blanket approval for preemptive strikes on whatever sovereignty or
power that is deemed to be the enemy of the moment. This represents such a grand distraction from
the serious domestic problems that plague ordinary citizens.
America has become apparently
incapable of using rational discourse and diplomacy in its dealing with other
peoples or nations different than ourselves, and has lost any real sense of
humanity. In part, this attitude stems
from the racism that lies at the nation’s core and is a reflection of how it
sees itself. This exceedingly arrogant
and prejudicial way of looking at the world at large is filled with unintended
consequences that may eventually lead to the downfall of the empire, most
probably from within. One needs to only
examine the current size of the military budget and the state of the national
economy with a staggering budget deficit (federal deficit for the year 2026
estimated at 1.9 trillion). More and
more resources are now destined to fill the coffers of the war industries for
the manufacture of exquisite machines of death at the expense of health care,
education, adequate housing and nutrition for many Americans. In addition, much
of the infrastructure of the country is in a serious state of decline.
One of the first acts of
reprisals for September 11 was the war against Afghanistan and especially Osama
Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban leadership that had supposedly been
protecting them (2001 – 2021). Note,
Osama Bin Laden was killed on May 2, 2011.
This war led to the death of many innocent civilians with some estimates
put at around 3,500 individuals by human rights advocates. This does not take into account the thousands
of refugees from the bombing who faced imminent starvation.
A documentary film entitled,
Massacre in Mazar, was made by the Irish director, Jamie Doran. The film presents testimony from Afghan eyewitnesses
that U.S. troops participated in the torture and murder of thousands of Taliban
prisoners near Mazar-i-Sharif. This film
received widespread coverage in the European press, and, not surprisingly,
almost no coverage in the United States.
This apparent censorship on the part of the domestic press is yet
another example of how the corporate media has cooperated with the government
in distilling and filtering the news reaching the American people.
One might ask why Afghanistan was
so brutally attacked. Were there any
other considerations that were not within the public eye? In December 2000, the Department of Energy
reported that, “Afghanistan’s significance from an energy standpoint stems from
its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas
exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea.”
Unocal, one of the promoters of a natural gas pipeline through
Afghanistan determined that the “Centgas” pipeline project would not be
feasible without an internationally recognized government in Afghanistan. In February of 1998, John J. Maresca, Vice
President of International Relations at Unocal, testified in front of the House
Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. In his testimony, he stated that, “Today, we
would like to focus on three issues concerning this region, its resources and
U.S. policy. The need for multiple
pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas.
The need for U.S. support for international regional efforts to achieve
balanced and lasting political settlements with Russia, other newly independent
states and in Afghanistan. The need for
structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of
appropriate investment climates in the region….”
Furthermore, the U.S. has a tangible
financial interest in the recoverable oil reserves in Kazakhstan. It should be remembered that the current Vice
President, Dick Cheney was the CEO of Dallas-based Halliburton Co., the largest
oil services company in the world.
Cheney was reported to have said to a group of oil industry executives
in 1998 that, “I can’t think of a time when we’ve had a region emerge as
suddenly to become as strategically important as the Caspian.”
This information suggests that
economic interests contributed to the decision to invade Afghanistan and, in so
doing, establish an economic and military presence in that region of the
world. Poor nations endowed with
plentiful natural resources and geographic importance invariably become the
focus of the colonial powers.
This plan finally came to
fruition after the fall of the Taliban.
On December 27, 2002, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) reported,
in an article entitled Central Asia Pipeline Deal Signed, that an agreement had
been signed in Ashgabat, the Turkman capital, that prepared for the
construction of a gas pipeline from Turkman through Afghanistan to Pakistan.
Soon after the Taliban regime was
successfully toppled in Afghanistan and a government favorable to U.S.
interests was put in place, The United States turned its attention to Iraq once
again. The United States military
amassed 150,000 troops on Iraq’s borders and had begun clamoring for war,
attempting to pressure the Security Council of the United Nations to go along
with this aggression supposedly to disarm Saddam Hussein. The rhetoric coming from the administration
at the time was that regardless of the Security Council’s decision, the United
States would invade for the purpose of uncovering and destroying weapons of
mass destruction. This rationale was
proven to be patently false. The
intention was to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s government and install a
“democracy” which, in fact, meant placing individuals into powerful positions
who would be beholding to the United States, and ready to insure the U.S. an
economic and military foothold in the country.
Iraq is known to have a vast amount of undeveloped oil reserves. Keep in mind that Halliburton, the energy
development company that was once chaired by Vice President Richard Cheney, stood
to harvest great profits from oil development and reconstruction in Iraq.
This “war” was regarded by many as
a blatant act of imperialist aggression by a superpower against an essentially
defenseless country. Furthermore, Iraq
had already been decimated by the very same country who viewed itself as its
liberator. Passions ran so high against
the war that millions of citizens throughout the world participated in street
protests even before the invasion began.
Unfortunately, war was not
prevented. As a matter of fact, the
administration, using Colon Powel as its spokesman, attempted to make its case
for war to the United Nations Security Council.
The evidence that was presented regarding supposed weapons of mass
destruction was weak - unconvincing at best and outright fraudulent at
worst. France, Russia and China did not
accept this evidence as convincing.
Rather than face a veto of the resolution that it placed before the
Security Council, the United State met with its allies, Great Britain and
Spain, and acted unilaterally. George W.
Bush offered an ultimatum to the Iraqi government: either abdicate or suffer
the consequences. In that way,
international law was rendered useless in the face of awesome military
strength, and a dangerous precedent was set for any nation to take pre-emptive
military action against a state that it might view as inimical to its
interests. A grossly illegal war was
waged, using overwhelming military force against a weak government eviscerated
by twelve years of draconian sanctions that was responsible for the death of
hundreds of thousands.
The war, itself, was responsible
for the deaths of thousands of civilians (the current estimate is some 9,000
people) as well as Iraqi soldiers, whose death toll probably rose to the tens
of thousands. An example of the extent
of brutality and horror perpetrated by American forces is given by the eye
witness account of Robert Fisk who writes, “There was a fearful battle along
Highway 1 on the western bank of the Tigris river in which Hussein’s guerillas
fought off an American tank column for 36 hours, the U.S. tanks spraying
shellfire down a motorway until every vehicle – military and civilian – was a
smoldering wreck. I walked the highway
as the last shots were still being fired by snipers, peering into cars packed
with the blackened corpses of men, women, children.
“Carpets and blankets had been
thrown over several piles of the dead.
In the back of one car lay a young, naked woman, her perfect features
blackened by fire, her husband or father still sitting at the steering wheel,
his legs severed below his knees.
“It was a massacre. Did we think the Iraqis would forget it?”
All of these victims had parents,
spouses, children and siblings who are not likely to forget any time soon. To expect the Iraqi people to embrace the
very people that visited upon them so much death and needless suffering is
ludicrous at best. The North is now
dominated by the Kurds, who are beginning their own policy of ethnic cleansing.
Baghdad and the cities of the south were
initially overwhelmed by chaos, looting and death. The people of Iraq were faced with a scarcity
of essential commodities, ailing hospitals and inadequate health care. The city of Baghdad suffered from power
outages and unemployment was exceedingly high.
The main objectives of the occupying forces were to suppress political
unrest and protect the oil fields, while the diplomats sought to ensure that a
government was put into place that would be subservient to U.S. interests.
If one were to follow the money,
the meaning of all of this becomes quite clear.
Billions of American taxpayer dollars have been used to finance the
destruction of Iraq for over twelve years.
Once the Iraqi regime was successfully overthrown and supplanted with
the American occupation, private corporate interests such as Halliburton and
Bechtel have been awarded exclusive contracts for reconstruction and oil
development projects and stand to harvest the profits.
According to Iraqi law, prior to
the occupation, foreign nationals were not permitted to invest in the
establishment of, or to acquire stock in an Iraqi company. The Iraq constitution also forbids the
privatization of state assets. However,
on September 19, 2003, Paul Bremer, the Administrator of the Coalition
Provisional Authority (CPA), authorized the implementation of Order Number
39. This order ratified the
privatization of 200 Iraqi companies and decreed that foreign firms can acquire
100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories. It also permitted these foreign investors to
move 100% of their profits out of the country.
This wholesale abrogation of Iraqi law is clearly in violation of
international law. The Hague regulations
state that an occupying force must honor “unless absolutely prevented, the laws
in force in the country.”
It is clear that the process of
what is referred to as “reconstruction” represents the wholesale transfer of
ownership of the energy and productive capacity of an entire nation into the
hands of essentially American corporate interests. Privatization of Iraqi business proceeded on
a grand scale with the major benefactors being those who contributed
substantially to the George W. Bush presidency.
Even the school textbooks were published in the United States. All this was accomplished without any
measurable input from the Iraqi people.
This represented a radical attempt to re-engineer an entire culture into
a prototype designed to fulfill American interests and to further feed the
voracious appetite of capitalism in its hunger for new markets. In reality, however, it is a strategy that
has incurred considerable costs in regard to the suffering endured by the Iraqi
people and the American military, that functions as a mere pawn in the game of
power.
The coercive practices of the
international economic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are being met with
considerable resistance throughout the world.
Iraq represents an entirely new model for economic development in which
a country is first destroyed and then rebuilt from the debris, circumventing
completely the cumbersome problems that sovereignty brings.
Not only have no weapons of mass
destruction have ever been found, but there is no longer talk of their
existence. It’s as if they were never an
issue to begin with. All the accumulated
evidence points to the magnitude of the deception that was foisted upon the
American public, for the purpose of pursuing this course of action.
At the end of June 2004, the U.S.
allegedly handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis. However, new Iraqi laws were crafted, by the
occupying authority, that directly benefit and maintain U.S. political and
economic hegemony, as previously described. To this day in 2026 there are still 2500 U.S.
military personnel in Iraq. Ain al-Asad
Air Base, as an example, currently houses U.S. military personnel. This is a sovereignty of a very dubious kind.
In my judgment, the most disheartening
aspect of this upheaval and conflict in the Middle East was the callous
indifference of many Americans, who viewed the Second Gulf War and its
aftermath as a kind of bizarre entertainment.
The disturbing images of the massive bombardment and overwhelming lethal
force used against a vastly overwhelmed enemy was treated as if the enemy were
less than human. The flags were brought
out and patriotism was invoked, in spite of the fact that the U.S. was clearly
the aggressor in this conflict. The
profoundly devastating effect all this violence has on the American public,
especially the young, is difficult to quantitate but disturbing to
contemplate. In her book entitled Power
Politics, Arundhati Roy referred to Americans as, “a curiously insular
people, administered by the pathologically meddlesome, promiscuous
government.”
Exactly how has this insularity
been maintained in a rapidly shrinking world?
Corporate interests and the military establishment, together with the
help and resourcefulness of the media, exert considerable influence over the
social order and custom in America. A
most disturbing trend in recent years has been growth of the media
conglomerates. In 1983, fifty
corporations dominated the mass media. By
the year 2003 there were ten corporations (mostly American) that dominated the
media worldwide. These are: AOL-Times
Warner, Disney, Bartelsmann, Vivendi, Viacom, New Corporation, AT&T,
General Electric (owner of NBC), Sony and Liberty Media. The danger inherent in this trend is that the
dissemination of news is under the control of fewer and fewer sources. Many of these conglomerates are essentially
entertainment industries that have become vertically integrated and whose major
preoccupation is profit. Michael Eisner,
CEO of the Disney Corporation, stated in a now famous memo, “We have no obligation
to make history. We have no obligation
to make a statement. To make money is
our only objective.”
These giant companies are
essentially politically conservative in outlook. They benefit from the existing socio-economic
order not only in the United States but around the world on account of their
global reach. It is not likely that they
will look kindly upon social and political upheavals that might pose a threat
to the status quo, and would, therefore, do their utmost to suppress this
information. This is not an idle
concern, for there are many instances in which newsworthy events have been
either under reported or not reported at all.
One example being the conflict with Afghanistan, as cited earlier. There was no real examination of America’s
economic interests in the region, the close ties between the Osama Bin Laden
and the Reagan administration during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and
the extent of suffering endured by the Afghanistan people as a direct result of
the invasion. How many of the poor
actually died of starvation during the invasion? How many innocent civilians were victims of
the bombardment? How many people became
permanent refugees? These are the
questions that journalists should attempt to address.
There are many other instances of
this selective coverage of events. The
extent of civilian causalities in Serbia as a result of U.S. and NATO bombing
raids was not adequately covered. The
death of civilians at the hands of NATO forces were viewed as “collateral
damage” resulting from human error, and, therefore, apparently of no real
importance. Another grievous example was
the almost complete blackout of coverage regarding the U.S. supported invasion
of East Timor in 1975 by the Indonesian government and subsequent massacre of
hundreds of thousands of East Timorese.
Henry Kissinger was directly implicated in the U.S. involvement in this
affair. If it were not for the persistent
exposure of this aggression by the likes of Naom Chomskey, the details of these
atrocities might never have been revealed.
The agenda of the powerful is, of
course, to remain in power. The fact
that the day-to-day business of the media in reporting the news has been ceded
to powerful interests with specific agendas is and should be disquieting. How can ordinary citizens make reasoned and
informed decisions about major developments in the world without fair, adequate
and full disclosure of events as they unfold?
Instead, the news that reaches the public is often pre-digested and made
to conform to self-serving principles.
This is what makes government propaganda so effective, for it has the
backing of the global media conglomerates.
Among those who profit directly
in both the arms trade and war itself, are many well placed ex-government
officials including the now deceased senior George Bush. He was intimately involved with the Carlyle
Group, an investment company with a stake in defense companies, medical
laboratories and telecommunications.
Other members of this group included: Joseph Carlucci: Secretary of
Defense under Reagan, James Baker: Secretary of State under George Bush, Fidel
Ramos: former President of the Philippines and John Major: former Prime
Minister of England. It is interesting
to note that some of the firm’s investors were members of Osama bin Laden’s
family. The Carlyle Group works within
and directly benefits from the close relationships between industry, government
and the military.
The development of military
technology, the production and sale of military equipment and the maintenance
of a standing army, navy and air force, represents a substantive part of the
national economy. These expenditures exert
a negative impact upon important programs that address issues of public concern.
The Iran War
In this year of this writing
(2026), I have recently celebrated my eighty-first birthday having lived
through all the wars and needless and horrific suffering associated with them
as I have cited above. I have protested
often and raised my concerns repeatedly regarding the actions of the federal
government under the aegis of many different presidents over the last sixty
years and still there is yet another war and this time our mortal enemy is
Iran. Like all the others referred to,
Iran is a small country populated by individuals that neither look like us nor
share our cultural history and perspective.
Like all the previous wars mentioned, Iran is essentially powerless against
our military power. Iran, like it’s neighbor
Iraq, has one particular commodity that feeds our industrial and
individualistic perspective and that commodity is oil.
Like all the previous wars cited,
Iran and its people are now subject to an onslaught of such magnitude that the
infrastructure so vital to living - their schools, their hospitals, their homes, their
places of employment - are being destroyed by nameless pilots flying machines
of death who show no apparent concern about their victims. Now it is Iranians that are subjected to the
limitless wrath of the United States whose apparent aim is to terrorize, to
kill and to maim without regard to families, to mothers and their children
until their lives are filled with desolation and dread; until survival is their
only watchword; until despair consumes them.
For this is the aim of the conquerors – to undermine an entire people to
the point that they can no longer trust the future; that they can no longer
attend to their children; that they can no longer live in peace or expect any
kind of stability.
What is the aim of this absolute
and unhinged madness? What is the goal
of this unconscionable use of power?
What are the origins of this unrestrained desire to separate mothers
from their children and leave an entire people without any choice but to
abandon their future and watch their entire families be obliterated by the
force of explosives and fire?
It seems that the ultimate goal
is for those with such power to use the chaos they engender to take what they want
and what they decide that they have to possess at whatever the cost. They care not for the devastation that they
leave behind and seem to take pleasure in an evil kind of alchemy that can in
moments turn the inherent richness of being alive into an absolute desert of
desolation and dread.
The one distinctive aspect of
this particular war is the character and persona of the current President,
Donald Trump. The American voters chose
on two different occasions a person clearly mentally disturbed, clearly a pathological
narcissist with a particular inability to speak the truth. The American voters chose on two different
occasions a person quite unable to comprehend any complex issue and illiterate especially
in regard to the U.S. Constitution and its inherent meaning. The American voters chose on two different
occasions a person who has freely proclaimed his allegiance to white supremacy
and his abhorrence of any ideal that even faintly encompasses diversity and
embraces the ideals of peace and social justice. Finally, he has not shown any sign of
possessing a moral compass.
Having this personality at the
helm of the Ship of State with all the power that comes with this position is a
particularly daunting issue that currently faces the nation. All the people of the United States are now
being led by this madmen, a corrupt and incompetent Cabinet and a Congress without
backbone or apparent ability to fathom the real difference between truth and
lie, between human freedom and oppression, between stability and chaos, between
love and hate.
Conclusion
In the shadow of these powerful
forces, the goals of achieving peace, social justice and freedom remain
elusive. Real transformation will only
come when people truly unite and insist on and demand change. The forces for change must not be placated by
empty promises of reform. The only
change that will endure is structural change.
The transformation I envision is one in which the nation truly reflects
the popular will, and national energy and resources are directed towards
establishing economic and social justice.
True and lasting peace will come when we begin to treat the peoples of this
world with compassion, generosity and humanity, and give up the will to
dominate. For, the underlying truth is that
all people are members of the same human family.
America would then be perceived
as being among the family of nations and not a dangerous aberration. This would entail accepting some profound
changes including bringing our consumption of the world’s energy and resources
into balance. Another change would
involve bringing down the fortress we have built around us and letting more of
the world in. We stand to learn a great
deal from the differing viewpoints and creative impulses that come from
cultures other than our own.
This nation must begin the
process of healing itself from within. A
critical part of this process is to acknowledge and begin to make restitution
for the destruction we have wrecked upon the Native American and African American
populations and the many peoples throughout the world who have felt the brutal
expression of our might. We must begin
to lessen our penchant for consumption and invest in renewable sources of
energy. We must re-channel our use of resources
for the social good and invest in the future of the planet. We must begin to dismantle our staggering
inventory of weapons of mass destruction and encourage all nations to do the
same. We must decry the use of space for
military purposes. We must pursue a
course of true democracy by eradicating the insidious and corrupting link
between special interest money and an allegedly representative government. We must bring democracy to the workplace and
encourage participation of the public in governing and government. We must, in short, begin a process of
profound and peaceful change that will transform the United States from a
powerful and arrogant empire acting alone in the world in pursuit of its own
interests, into one nation among many nations, ready and able to participate
fully in eliminating poverty and social and economic injustice throughout the
world. Without this kind of
transformation, this nation is bound to accelerate its own decline and ultimate
demise.
The above list of imperatives might
be seen by some as so much wishful thinking.
I maintain, however, that these actions must be taken if we want the
species to successfully continue into the future. The current path is irrational and
essentially self-destructive. One does
not need a vivid imagination to envision the future if we continue on our
present course unabated. We will see a
world exhausted of its natural resources and denuded of the marvelous diversity
of life that is receding from the planet at an alarming rate. We will see the world of humans plagued by
bitter hatreds, antagonisms and endless cycles of wars and violence fueled by
the enormous disparity between rich and poor.
We cannot continue much longer on this path without reaping disastrous
consequences.
I will end this topic with the following
poem
WAR
Strident
pronouncements from the
pulpit of
state
proclaiming
superiority,
demanding
loyalty,
stirring the
shimmering
caldron of
fear,
a tsunami of
emotions
assaulting the
senses.
War grinds on
poking
desperate holes in
the fabric of
reason.
Humans stand
astride
the abyss of
the damned
and plunge
without reluctance
into the chaos
of their own making.
War shreds
humanity
under the
staggering weight
of bountiful
corpses
left
bloodless,
discharged
from the living
in a torrent
of metal and fire.
Cycles of
endless violence and
retribution,
falling upon
the sharpened spikes
of hatred
ignorance
fear.
War glorifies
pitiful death
upon the altar
of
the
unrelenting darkness
I mourn for
all the pointless dead,
for the
gravestones piled high upon
the
beleaguered hearts of all the mothers
who have wept
over the ashes
of their vanquished children.
Wars’ hollow
victories
give succor to
the void
and offer the
promise
of future
grief upon the bones of
fractured
peace.
I mourn for
needless suffering,
for the
compendium of horrors,
for the blood
and sinews of the
armies of
victims who
fall to the
earth so thoroughly broken.
War is carnage
unredeemed by
the rhetoric of
shallow
righteousness or
the politics
of punishment and retribution.
I long for a
time when peace is
no longer a
sentiment
reserved for
the prophets,
not just a
word used on
special
occasions,
not simply a
sweet turn of phrase
laced within
the rhetoric of
the politics
of deception,
but a way of
being
within the substance of humanity.
THE END
No comments:
Post a Comment